No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

[_ Old Earth _]Evolution Vs Evolution Concerning Textbooks

Go to page

Go to page

victorhadin

Guest

Very well. -So you believe that the scientific community, in a variety of fields, are talking rubbish (rubbish that is plainly obvious, of course, for you can see it) against all evidence. You can, naturally, see where I assume that you saw a conspiracy.

-But on the face of it, your alternate explanation makes just as little sense. You now argue that scientists in relevant fields spontaneously support evolution because of their emotions or because 'it feels right'. Exactly why hundreds of thousands of scientists, biologists, archaeologists and related professionals would all do so is entirely unclear. -After all, you are not fooled and the majority of scientists are theists one way or another, and the largest group of them are christians. Why would they be so easily 'decieved'?
If your hypothesis were true, we would regularly be seeing studies publicised in scientific journals stating evidence against evolution or perhaps supporting an old Earth; studies carried out with intimate care by christian scientists.

But we aren't.

The fact of the matter is that this is no more feasible than the 'conspiracy' idea. -Feelings and emotions are not the issue; evidence is, and evidence currently supports evolution by natural selection and a planet billions of years old.

R

Rebecka

Guest

Basically, this is what you want me to believe;
A man who needs to bathe regularly, and wear deodorant or he will smell badly, must eat what comes from the ground or he will starve to death, must drink water regularly or die of thirst by dehydrating, must sleep every night, could get a serious disease at any moment, is subject to death at any moment, can hate people and things, probably has ingrown toenails, could have arthritis, gout, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, hemmorhoids, gas, bloating, itchy skin, HIV, herpes, pimples, be constipated,etc. can live a few years on this big earth in this vast mysterious universe no one understands, attend school, read a few books, look at the earth with instruments more decrepid old men invented and TELL ME how old the earth is, then die the next day of a heart attack and rot in his grave.

If it wasn't so pathetic, I would laugh.

There is no evidence for evolution. None.
Darwin's fear that no transitional fossils would be found was realized a long time ago. You may claim there are, but I know better. The evolutionists were so desperate for something, they did the Peltdown Man lie along with other nonsense.
Why is it that you think God has to prove himself to you? It is understood by the sane majority there is a God. Do you want proof to believe or to mock? Or for debate material?
Atheism is a religion, so is evolution. If atheism had any facts to back it up, we would live in an atheist world. The order of the universe and all within it would proclaim atheism.
Thousands of years of progress has been supported by belief in God, not by atheism.
Atheism is a small black dot somewhere in the dark corner of a back room dungeon with no proof of it's claims.
The proof is in the pudding, and atheism has never, in thousands of years managed to overrule belief in God.
Believers in God rule the world.

Christianity has revolutionized the world. It controls the world. It leads the world. Evil tries, but God's grace is abounds more.

There is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God.
This statement is found in the Bible.
Every power, or force existing is of God. God made it for his own purpose.

Secular education is no proof of sanity.
Your belief that education, ie:scientists, philosophers, educators, etc. are right is not true.
Men who die are not dependable. If they're so smart, why do they die?

Why do they die? As smart as they claim to be, the grow old and die, then decay and to dust they go as God said they would.

Decay is obvious. How much more proof do you need?

We will die. God said so.

We shall return to dust because from dust we were taken.

Men who die cannot be trusted as I said.

Shall I post names of so called great men who killed themslves?
My point? Man cannot be trusted! Who knows what he will do. History is a record of man's abilties and actions and we know what it says.
Why do you have such faith in men who die?

I told you what order is, what chaos is. You refuse it.

Order is what is right. To not kill someone would be in order. To not steal would be in order. To think correctly is order.

Out there in space, there is order and chaos. Your soul and spirit can discern order from chaos unless you're mentally challenged.

The other poster has made some valid statements, all true. I know you have faith because God dealt you the measure of it.

All the journals you read are written by evolutionists. Try reading what men of God scientists say.

I love Kent Hovind's website, it offers $100,000.00 to anyone who can give proof of evolution. It is a real offer and the money is there, but in ten years, the money has never been claimed.
Kent Hovind is an educated man and is a colleague of more educated men and his website is proof there is no proof of evolution.

V

victorhadin

Guest

Basically, this is what you want me to believe;
A man who needs to bathe regularly, and wear deodorant or he will smell badly, must eat what comes from the ground or he will starve to death, must drink water regularly or die of thirst by dehydrating, must sleep every night, could get a serious disease at any moment, is subject to death at any moment, can hate people and things, probably has ingrown toenails, could have arthritis, gout, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, hemmorhoids, gas, bloating, itchy skin, HIV, herpes, pimples, be constipated,etc. can live a few years on this big earth in this vast mysterious universe no one understands, attend school, read a few books, look at the earth with instruments more decrepid old men invented and TELL ME how old the earth is, then die the next day of a heart attack and rot in his grave.

Correct. He can do this because he is working upon the findings of others in a scientific structure that stretches back centuries, building on the knowledge of the past. He can do this because evidence points to it, in the shape of the visible effects of plate tectonics, of radiometric dating (in all itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s numerous methods) on many regions, on the observed existence of sedimentary rock, on the fact that we can see other galaxies, even. Every speck of evidence gathered by numerous disciplines within science points to an Earth of billions of years in age.

And meanwhile you sit there and wax poetic on how a scientific system built on mortal men cannot possibly work. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know if this irony is visible to you, but you are typing on a machine which is designed with physical tenets of conductance, lattice vibration and electron movement in mind. On a machine which is cooled by aerodynamic processes, again justified, outlined and measured by centuries of patient study via scientific principles. You send your messages, encoded, through the air via microwave transmission, again firmly measured and predicted by the study of radiation emission and interference. All the while, your machine draws electricity from a power station that combines the whole lot and, should it be nuclear, even verifies the correctness of scientific knowledge about decay rates, since that power station has clearly not turned into a giant mushroom cloud.

And you use this manifestation of centuries of patient research-upon-research, following the scientific method, to slag it off and claim that it is untenable and unworkable. Ironic, no?

The fossil record already holds a large (if by no means complete) record of some of the species which have evolved on this planet, many transitional species (we shall get into that in due course) and shows the steady progression, rather than sudden creation, of many biological features, such as movable jawbones, flexible spines, exoskeletons, eyes, teeth etc.
In addition we have the evidence of isolated ecosystems (the Galapagos being the most obvious but lake Tanganika (sp?) and many other regions being further ones) in which new species exist with clear common ancestry with other species separated from their isolated ecosystems.
Furthermore we have evidence of beneficial mutations; the constant evolution via natural selection of diseases, becoming resistant to many antibiotics, the leap from sheep to cow to human of prion-based diseases (CJD), the increased resistance to poisons of rats and insect pests. Hell; even sickle-cell anaemia in humans shows a beneficial mutation which was selected for under the right environmental circumstances; also an example of evolution by natural selection.
As if that wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t enough, we have demonstrated examples in which speciation has been induced in fruit flies, creating two distinct populations.
-We have the evidence of common genetic ancestry in addition, now that the science of genetics has flourished. Our similarities with, and common ancestries with, many primates (chimpanzees in particular) has been observed on the genetic level!

The fact is that not only is there evidence for evolution, but it is overwhelming, which is precisely why the entire scientific community now agree with it, arguing only over details, despite the birth of the theory against (at the time) intense common opposition from the religious majority. Despite this, the evidence has shown it through.

Darwin's fear that no transitional fossils would be found was realized a long time ago. You may claim there are, but I know better. The evolutionists were so desperate for something, they did the Peltdown Man lie along with other nonsense.

Transitional fossils can be defined in a couple of different ways: In one, they can be seen as fossils showing links between families or genera, often over a period of tens of millions of years. In another, they can be a sequence of fossils showing a species-to-species transition. Both result in the divergence of populations down speciated lines; they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even have to look particularly different. Both exist. Here are examples:

Palaeoniscoids: Primitive bony fish from which most modern bony fish are derived. They show significant similarities in certain parts of their bone structure to earlier families of fish.
Parasemionotus: Show modified jaw features from earlier families but several similarities to Palaeoniscoids. They are intermediates between them and modern Teleosts.
Temnospondyls: A group of early amphibians, transitionals between ichthyostegids, very early amphibians, and later examples such as rhachitomes. Modifications of denstistry, ear, body size and other aspects are evident.
Triadobatrachus: Early proto-frog. Shared many features with more modern frogs but still had a tail, among other features.
Archeopteryx: Well known transitional between reptiles and early birds. Sadly, few such transitionals exist.
Palaechthon: Early examples leading to primate evolution. First primate-esque teeth.
Cantius: One of the first true primates.
Pelycodus: Primitive lemur-like primates.

This is a tiny drop in the ocean. There are many more.

The fossil record is consistent with a steady, or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpunctuated-equilibriumÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ model of evolution, with a steady increase in the complexity of species (such levels of differing complexity is reflected down to the DNA in modern organisms, indeed) and a steady accumulation of features which (sometimes the less-than-effective) pass on through the fossil records.

On the other hand, it fits not at all with a creationist point of view. Species are clearly seen to change and diverge from one form to another, and families and genera merge. I addition, features on animals turn up in steady progression, not all at once. This does not fit at all with the model literally described in the bible; that all kinds were created separately (whether those kinds were species or families etc).
In addition the ordering of the fossils in sedimentary and other rocks formations do not even slightly fit with a global flood and resulting settlement, though I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not gullible enough to believe in a conceivable global flood.

Oh yes, once again; it was a collection of scientists, cynically studying the so-called 'Piltdown man', who showed it to be a fraud. This is hardly a grand all-encompassing lie.

1) Atheism is a religion, so is evolution. If atheism had any facts to back it up, we would live in an atheist world. The order of the universe and all within it would proclaim atheism. 2) Thousands of years of progress has been supported by belief in God, not by atheism.
Atheism is a small black dot somewhere in the dark corner of a back room dungeon with no proof of it's claims. 3)The proof is in the pudding, and atheism has never, in thousands of years managed to overrule belief in God.
Believers in God rule the world.

1) Atheism is not a religion. Period. I shall guide you through this simply with dictionary definitions:

Atheism:

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Religion:

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

All that is needed to be an atheist, by said definition, is not to belief in a deity. That would be a simple, passive, disbelief in a deity. As such, every child, untutored in religion, is an atheist by default, for example.

Atheism does not promote a fixed set of values, beliefs or practices. It certainly does not institutionalise them.
-It also requires precisely zero ardour and faith, as all that is necessary is a simple lack of belief in a deity. An atheist can insist and belief as a matter of faith that there is no god, but he can also be an atheist by simple lack of belief, which is a passive issue and so not related to faith, as there is no belief for faith to be attached to.

So endeth that lesson.

2) You said:

Thousands of years of progress has been supported by belief in God, not by atheism.

Wholly incorrect. Thousands of years of technological progress has not stemmed from organised religion in the slightest. Early philosophers and mathematicians did not use the bible to guide them through their reasoning, early nautical engineers did not pray for guidance on shipbuilding, nuclear physicists at no point contacted the local church for tips and the programmer of this messageboard utility didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t either.

Progress has been brought to us by achievement in the fields of science and engineering and the resultant effects on society, not by religion. The agricultural revolution was not inspired by belief in god. The industrial revolution was not inspired by belief in god. The Rennaisance was not inspired by belief in god (indeed, this was the period in which humanism first took root). The space race wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, the revolution in air travel wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, the development of the internet, of specialised means of production, of mechanised workplaces, of modern accounting, of electricity generation wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢tÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ do you see where I am going here?

Atheism did not inspire any of this and neither did Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism or any of the rest. The progress of our society has been down to analysis of the world around us and the development of models and experiment which will allow effective design, realisation etc.
All this, happily enough, was achieved by mortal men and women working on past knowledge and experimenting, hypothesising and observing in order to add to it Ã¢â‚¬â€œThe very people you deride as being ineffective due to mortality!

Well, just be happy that you are wrong and that, as a result of your incredible incorrectness on this issue, you are able to live and work in a comfortable, developed, technological nation instead of a medieval hovel. Bravo!

3) You said:

The proof is in the pudding, and atheism has never, in thousands of years managed to overrule belief in God.
Believers in God rule the world.

Fortunately for us all, truth is not defined by popularity and numbers. If that were so, the Earth would be flat, disease would stem from godÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s will, people with schizophrenia would be assumed to be possessed and Chinese would be the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s premier language.

Indeed, here is an interesting point: The majority of the population of this planet (6-6.5 billion people) are in fact not Christian. Do you still wish to proceed with philosophy via popular vote?

Christianity has revolutionized the world. It controls the world. It leads the world. Evil tries, but God's grace is abounds more.

And yet your children will live beyond your death, their DNA fresh and new. Obviously some of your Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdecay is inevitable and leads to deathÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ logic is incorrect or at least badly-phrased.

Shall I post names of so called great men who killed themslves?
My point? Man cannot be trusted! Who knows what he will do. History is a record of man's abilties and actions and we know what it says.
Why do you have such faith in men who die?

No you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. You never made a testable empirical definition at any point at all. All you have said is tidbits like Ã¢â‚¬Ëœchaos is orderÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s servantÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœa tornado seems to bring chaos but does notÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and Ã¢â‚¬Ëœorder is rightÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. At no point have you ever properly defined your terms.

I even gave you a sample definition for you to use; thermodynamic order and disorder. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s key facets are that it can be measured and tested. Your assemblage of poetic language cannot.

All the journals you read are written by evolutionists. Try reading what men of God scientists say.

I do. Most scientists are theists, as study after study has shown. Try again.

I love Kent Hovind's website, it offers $100,000.00 to anyone who can give proof of evolution. It is a real offer and the money is there, but in ten years, the money has never been claimed.
Kent Hovind is an educated man and is a colleague of more educated men and his website is proof there is no proof of evolution.

I am familiar with Kent Hovind. He is a spouter of pseudoscience and rubbish. He has argued that the flood is possible and that there are no problems with stuffing every creature on Earth onto a wooden ark, that moon-dust is too shallow for an old Earth, that U236 is found on the moon, that the flood could have created the grand canyon or glacial valleys etc.
As a peasing display in irony, many of his Ã¢â‚¬ËœargumentsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ can be found HERE. Tell me that isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t ironic!

As for his offer, not only does he not just include evolution in his demands (the entire realm of cosmology and abiogenesis are thrown in too), but it is worded so that to win the prize you must prove that god does not exist and was not involved. As you know, proving a negative is a logically impossible feat (I refer you to the invisible pink unicorn under my bed).

Hovind is a scam-artist.

But to summarise this all, you have so far entirely failed to back up my question on how a decay in order prevents evolution, you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t at any point defined any of your terms correctly, you argue via assertion (I have yet to see any backing reasoning on logical grounds or evidence backing your views) and you still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explained your ridiculous ideas about how the scientific method and the accumulation of scientific and engineering knowledge over time is pointless due to mortality.

For ChristÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sake, try to define your terms and back up your assertions! If you are unable, as you seem to be, you have picked the wrong argument. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want a stream of assertive poetic language; I want firm logical reasoning backed by evidence. Now get it!

bjdea1

Guest

This is in response to your response to me - not your most recent response.

Victor - gee - I read your response and it just seems pretty harsh. You really want to trample on my arguments and if you could - take the air out of my lungs and suffocate me as well .

Ah dear..... you're a tough one to crack.... its not the arguments you put forward.. just your aggression towards what I've written. Why are you so against it? I wonder what kind of a friend you would make? Not a very supportive one I gather, your attacks are pretty stinging and I just wonder whats your intent here?

I think I know now why you are not having things revealed to you by God - Jesus's describes himself as a man "Gentle and humble in heart", he's a nice guy, he is compassionate, he builds people up, he cares. He is not like this, you will not see the truth until you soften your heart a bit. I'm not trying to make an enemy here - I also am not right about everything - but come on ease off a bit please.

Forget science and all this proofs and arguments and debating - maybe try flipping the coin in your own personality one day and just challenge yourself to be nice to a christian and see what its like - it might surprise you. In fact I challenge you to support me just once and try to find something worthwhile and good in what I've written. It perplexes me why you are so against everything - it actually demostrates my point in my previous post - something in your heart simply refuses to look for the good in whats been written and forces you to try to trash it all, despite my personal best efforts to explain my views to you.

Maybe I should ask you about your work. What exactly are you involved with in Aerospace Engineering? It sounds like it would be pretty interesting.

V

victorhadin

Guest

Actually, I am a surprisingly nice guy, to be honest. As ever, the written word betrays me as a bit of an ogre, when in fact the spirit of my words has been somewhat confused, probably.

If you were to sit down with me in a pub and have a lively debate over a pint, you would find me much more accomodating, I'm sure. The anonymous written word never really lends itself to sensitivity, alas.

As for my work; I'm not involved in anything much right now, but I have been offered a job starting next year in a defence company involved with artillery design. It shall chiefly be stress-analysis stuff and not 'aerospace' per se at all, but one must take what one is given.

R

Rebecka

Guest

Victor asks; how is the scientific method and the accumulation of scientific and enginering knowledge over time pointless due to mortality. And how does decay in order prevent evolution. Evolution isn't prevented, it doesn't exist. It is a manmade word only used to describe an untruth. What you call evolution are in truth the revealings of God to man.

Knowledge is not pointless, but credit must be given to whom credit is due. It is not man who is doing one thing, yet, you give all credit to man who is here for a few breaths and is gone.
God gives. He is a giving God. God reveals. He is a revealing God. It isn't that man is smart, it is that God slowly reveals to man what man is able to contain. Ancient Sumerian barely able to contain how to make a clay pot, but somehow was revealed to them writing, so we can have records. Ancient Semitics barely able to distinguish this from that. No jet airplanes, only clay tablets and pots. God started out with small things. Bill Gates could not have lived then, but now God can reveal his knowledge to give us the internet. It was time! Time does nothing, but God does things in his own time.
God is Light. Would God suddenly pour on us all his glory? No, it would kill us for no one can see him and live. He reveals himself slowly as we can take it in. Slowly he is shopwing us what he can do. He didn't make Adam and blast him with ALL His knowledge or Adam would have died recieiving all the knowledge of God in one lifetime. Adam would have blew up with so much power and glory.

Not evolving going on, but revealings of God to man of his own glory and power. Man made from the earth is barely able to last a hundred years here at most, so God gets another man and continues his revealing to us because He is a spirit eternal and is the one doing it all. We are spirit but living in clay bodies. Only God is able to keep going. We finally wear out and die, but God keeps right on going because he himself is life.

The Bible says that God has made everything beautiful in HIS time. Not ours. Example, I live in the 21st century, and could not have been happy in the 10th century with my knowledge now. I would have to have been a 10th century object of God's will of revelation. I would be perfectly bored with the mind I have now if I was suddenly transported to the 10th century. I would not fit there. I was destined to live now because God chose to reveal me now as he chose to reveal you now.

Man doesn't invent anything, though God lets them say they do because he is a good and merciful loving and giving God. I write a book, I say I wrote it. I get all the credit and the money because God let me take all the credit, but I am a created being, made in his image with his spirit in me called breath. God wrote the book through me using me to reveal more to the human race. If a dirty book is written, God allowed his arch enemy satan to write it. It is all what God does. The ideas live on because GOD WROTE them ,not man though man gets the credit because man is arrogant and proud and God is nice and doesn't care, he knows he did it anyway.

There is such a thing as the glory of God, it is the ability of God, his power. He reveals his glory to us little by little, jot by jot, tittle by tittle, a line here, a line there. Man is a fragile thing, very liable to die any second and who knows how.

When the ancients were here, God didn't give them the internet or jet airplanes, they were not able to recieve it, it would have destroyed their limited thinking. God, through the ages has revealed his power, his KNOWLEDGE to man as man is able to recieve it. It is an infintite Being somehow bringing He and us together through the centuries. It is no small thing He is doing. Imagine trying to reconcile greatness with nothingness. He can do it and is doing it.

It is NOT evolution. It is God slowly revealing more and more of himself to us, his creatures. Where he dwells, which is in us, he is slowly making himself known and there is no limit to what he can do, which we can palinly see. He is accomplishing his purposes in us.

Man is made from the earth. Only a fool would think a man made from dirt is able to do anything on his own, if he were able, the first thing he would do is keep himself ALIVE. God has said we must die. God uses one person, then gets another. Man can take so much because we are created beings made from the earth.

God made man in HIS image. Man is a spirit being housed in clay. This image of God is being revealed slowly and as the centuries have passed,we have seen more and more of the greatness of God by what he is giving us, by all the things we have seen come into being. It is not man doing it, it is God slowly revealing to man his greatness and glory.

Does man evolve? No, man is a vessel through whom God reveals himself slowly and slowly as man can bear it.

150 years ago, God didn't reveal to us the light bulb, but through Edison he did when we were ready for it.

That is why it is pointless for man to credit himself.

The things God reveals to us isn't pointless, they can live on, but man himself doesn't, not here on earth.

As for your pink unicorn under your bed; if nations were built by faith in it's existence and the earth's greatest nation the USA writing "In Unicorns we trust" on it's money, if a book about it's life were the world's best seller and it had cathedrals and churches built in it's honor and lives were changed by believing in it's teachings, then, yes, I would certainly look into it's claims.

Knowledge is not pointless, but credit must be given to whom credit is due. It is not man who is doing one thing, yet, you give all credit to man who is here for a few breaths and is gone.
God gives. He is a giving God. God reveals. He is a revealing God. It isn't that man is smart, it is that God slowly reveals to man what man is able to contain.

You claim that technological and scientific innovation is not not an invention of mankind but is in fact 'whispered' to individuals by god.

-Back yourself up.

Again; that idea doesn't hold together under scrutiny. It fails to consider the vast amount of inspired yet incorrect hypotheses and theories which have existed at one point or another. If god whispers inspiration into the mind of every scientist, how do you account for this?
-Furthermore, a model of discovery-by-inspiration doesn't account for the methods by which scientists arrive at their findings. In every case, it is at the end of a substantial, even life-consuming amount of background research, observation and experimentation. It is not done by scientists suddenly leaping up, inspired, and exclaiming "Eureka! I have surmised the structure of DNA!" It takes research, not inspiration.

Again you have argued with assertion. Back up your hypothesis.

Man is made from the earth. Only a fool would think a man made from dirt is able to do anything on his own, if he were able, the first thing he would do is keep himself ALIVE. God has said we must die. God uses one person, then gets another. Man can take so much because we are created beings made from the earth.

Humans are not made from dirt or clay at all, actually. The chemical composition is entirely wrong. How do you account for this?

As for your pink unicorn under your bed; if nations were built by faith in it's existence and the earth's greatest nation the USA writing "In Unicorns we trust" on it's money, if a book about it's life were the world's best seller and it had cathedrals and churches built in it's honor and lives were changed by believing in it's teachings, then, yes, I would certainly look into it's claims.

Rebecka

Guest

First about Islam. Muhammed was a deluded man and Islam doesn't merit my attention. There is no record or proof of his claims. It is all nonsense to say the least.

You refer to my post as a point of view. I have no point of view, but I am a student of the Bible and know what it says concerning man.

I didn't say inventions are "whispered" to individuals as what happens when that demon controlled Edwards on "Crossing Over" who wants us to believe that all dead people whom the Bible says know nothing are whispering secrets to him on a stage on nationwide television to give to their grieving relatives messages while he rakes in the money capitilizing on their tears.

His "whisperings" are demons. You cannot put words in my mouth.

I said God REVEALS to us over time his glory as we can contain it.

I also posted that if a dirty book is written OR something or someone creates chaos instead of order, or "incorrect hypothesis" as you put it, then it is satan doing the work, not God. Evil is present in the universe along with good, but thank God, good is greater than evil.
That is how "incorrect hypothesis" is accounted for.

As far as methods are involved, God can choose whatever method he chooses, and take years, months, whatever, as long as he wants, but it is God doing it all. I'm not saying we are robots, but I'm saying that the knowledge man finds is first in God, then is given to us as he wills to reveal it to us.

Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find"

Men seek answers, they find them. Sometimes it takes time and effort, it depends on what you seek.

I also didn't say inspiration. I said God REVEALS himself to us slowly through the centuries by whatever methods he wants.

Yes, man is made from dust. Go dig up a corpse and tell us what is there after decay. Dust.

Would your unicorn building nations make it more truthful? Truth is truth and cannot be more true than it is. Even as black is black and white is white, Can you make black blacker or white whiter? Or can you make the day more day or the night more night?
How about making an apple more of an apple? Truth is truth. Can you remove your ears and hear someone tell you what you did with them?

"Via a majority vote" you ask. God and I or God and you are the majority.

Majority vote has nothing to do with truth. Truth stands alone and needs no approval. We need it's approval.

The same applies to your religion on the issue of evidence. Why do you believe in it and not the Islamic faith, or Hinduism or Buddhism? What makes you hold your largely baseless faith above the others?

Rebecka said:

<SNIP>

I said God REVEALS to us over time his glory as we can contain it.

I also posted that if a dirty book is written OR something or someone creates chaos instead of order, or "incorrect hypothesis" as you put it, then it is satan doing the work, not God. Evil is present in the universe along with good, but thank God, good is greater than evil.
That is how "incorrect hypothesis" is accounted for.

As far as methods are involved, God can choose whatever method he chooses, and take years, months, whatever, as long as he wants, but it is God doing it all. I'm not saying we are robots, but I'm saying that the knowledge man finds is first in God, then is given to us as he wills to reveal it to us.

Poor reasoning. When flesh decays, it becomes food for countless billions of microbes, worms , crustaceans, insects and whatever other animals are available to feast on it. The released protein and fat is consumed, some becomes ammonia, which is transformed via bacterial processes into nitrite and nitrate, which is then used by vegetation.

It does not magically turn into dust. Again; the chemical composition is all wrong. Man is not dirt. Account for this.

Would your unicorn building nations make it more truthful? Truth is truth and cannot be more true than it is. Even as black is black and white is white, Can you make black blacker or white whiter? Or can you make the day more day or the night more night?
How about making an apple more of an apple? Truth is truth. Can you remove your ears and hear someone tell you what you did with them?

"Via a majority vote" you ask. God and I or God and you are the majority.

Majority vote has nothing to do with truth. Truth stands alone and needs no approval. We need it's approval.

bjdea1

Guest

Good...glad to hear you are still human
The job offer you mentioned sounds good and I wish you the best ofsuccess with it. I agree that these online forums make it easy to forget we are talking to other human beings. Actually I can say if I were to really be a genuine friend to you and show some genuine love of Christ this may very well be the only way to reveal things to you. Say I stood up for you when others were against you, say I gave you some real encouragement when you were struggling. say I was someone you could count on and actually cared? I think this would show you that while you can reason your way around so many scientific things when it comes to genuine love - how can you argue against that? What reasoning do you have then? Unfortunately this world is in a really bad state and the Love of many has grown cold. To survive in this life you have to be hard, you have to be heartless, well basically you can't afford to trust or love others - its too risky, you will get taken for a ride. Such a sad state of affairs is exactly why God sent His Son to die on the cross - to save us from this world. Its the only solution to a seemingly hopeless situation. Without Christ and what He did there is no hope for any man....only death awaits you.......surely there is more to life and everything than living say 70 years and then dieing.....only Jesus offers some meaning and purpose to life....ok ....well at least only belief in a higher being offers us some meaning and purpose. I discovered myself that the ultimate purpose of life the universe and everything was to give God a bride. God is seeking a bride....God is seeking love (a relationship) himself......that's why He created man......to be loved back by his creation. This explains free will, love, relationships and everything. This explains why we suffer now and live in such a harsh world.....Love can only truly exist if there is Free Will to Chose....Free will means sin (some will chose to hate instead)...which means pain in this life, because we are all affected by each others choices and actions. The father of hate and evil is the devil the father of life and love is God....who a man serves in this life determiines his fate....to serve God is to Love God........to suffer for Him because we love Him.........jesus was the first example.......He gave His life for the world....when He could have lived as long as he wanted....He served God and did His will instead of His own. How do you explain good and evil in the world? Evolution and science does not explain why there is Good and Evil in the world. What is Evil? - ask yourself... what actually is it? Why do you feel bad when you do something wrong? Why do we have guilt and a conscience? Evolution doesn't require this. So why do they exist? I mean go outside and shoot some little boy dead and I know you would be overcome with extreme grief.....because this is extremely evil.....and Man does have a heart and does cares..well most of the time....there are some really evil sick people around...but my point is evolution has no way to explain the human emotion and human heart - doesn't it make more sense to believe what the bible says about good and evil in the world.? Plus another thing I have noticed what is the effect of believing in evolution - it makes you a heartless, cold person who has little sensitvity - believe in a God of Love and this makes you a person with a heart , warmer, friendlier and a more caring person. Evolution and the scientific belief/approach is empty and cold in my opinion and offers no explanations for so much of the human experience and good and evil. I think a lot of scientists have lost touch with their own heart. I tell you I personally tend to gravitate toward warm, friendly people who believe in God and to move away from overly scientific people because they don't seem to have hearts, they are obsessed with logic. Since when does believing in no God and that death is th end and we all came from animals and are just evolved from nothing give any richness to life - to me it only makes for a miserable life......plus it encourages you to be heartless because basically "its the survival of the fittest" ..right? So like evolution teaches - the strongest wins.....stuff the little people or the weak...they have bad genes anyway and should be killed off to improve the species right? This is sick.....evolution is empty of any morality. Actually if you really do believe in evolution why aren't you going around killing all the sick, weak people with bad genes? Aren't they bad for the human species? Are they bad for the evolution of humans? Isn't it clear that the core of evolution is heartless and empty of morality... why if you believe in evolution would you believe in being nice to people who are weaker or in need or a drain etc etc. Why donate money to the poor? Why encourage the weak? They are bad anyway for the human species right? Its better they die off. This is obviously an immoral argument and proves to me Evolution has HUGE holes in it and doesn't explain life half as well as the bible. Look at Hitler, he tried to produce a race of super humans and tried to remove the Jews completely from the face of the earth - a form of genetic purification of the German people - similar to my last argument - this idea of Hitler's was obviously sick and evil. The world has clearly comdemned Him. I believe an Evolution frame of mind produces these immoral crimes against humanity and God. Evolution is one of Satans tools to deceive men to do evil.

Anyway I'm just wondering where abouts do you live - I'm mean country. I'm guessing UK am I right? I'm from Australia, Melbourne.

R

Rebecka

Guest

I post these quotes;
Science says; "The identical elements in the human body are also found in ordinary soil." And a scientist said, " If it were possible for the human body to lose all of it's electrical values, that body would immediately fly to dust."
Science says, "The "north" above our earth is "empty" and this fact is first found in Job 26:7

Science says; "Air has weight" and this is found in Job 28:25
Science says; "Earth must balance" and Isaiah the prophet said this thousands of years ago. Isaiah 40:12

Science says; "Earth hangs on nothing." Job said this thousands of years before. See Job 26:7

Science syas; "Stars do not deviate in their courses." The book of Judges said this in the Old Testament.

Science says; "Sand keeps the ocean in." Jeremiah the prophet said this first.

There are springs on bottom of ocean, the Bible said it long ago.

Coleridge said there is no richer passage in all literature than Matthew 5:1-16
Daniel Webster said the greatest legal digest is the Sermon of the Mount by Jesus Christ.
Charles Dickens said the most pathetic story in the world is the Prodigal Son
Great educated men said;
There is no Law like the Law of Moses.
No poetry like David's
No visions like Isaiah's
No ethics like Jesus'
No zeal like Peter's
No logic like Paul's
No love like what John spoke of and
Paul described in 1 Corinthians 13

Sir Isaac Newton had a replica of our solar system made in miniature. In the center was the sun in it's retinue of planets revolving around it.
A scientist entered Newton's study one day and exclaimed, "My! What an exquisite thing this is. Who made it? Newton told him, "Nobody!"
The scientist who was an unbeliever said, "You must think I'm a fool. Of course someone made it and he is a genius!"
Newton laid his hand on his friend's shoulder and said, "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander design whose laws you and I know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess that the great original design from which this design was taken has come into being without designer or maker. Now, tell me, by whgat sort of reasoning do you reach such incongruous conclusions?"

A manufacturere of cutlery said it takes two days for a worker to put the parts of a meat chopper together and he knows that if you put all the parts in a tub and shake them for a billion years, you will not get a meat chopper.
There is much to prove the existence of God though what is obvious needs no proof, hence the Bible doesn't prove him, but understands he is real.
End of quotes.

Islam is founded on the delusions of a man given to hysteria and visions which almost drove him to suicide. This same man Muhammed married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was nine. His teachings are based on his visit to Syria when he was a boy of 15 and met Jews and Christians. It has been proven by christian scholars and theologians that Muhammed's claims are merely the ramblings of a misguided man.

Voltaire's twelve volumes sold for two dollars at an auction and his home isnow used by a Bible society. Ingersoll said much and died afraid and confused.

Never man spake like Jesus Christ. He spoke from his own essence and no man ever did that except him. All the literature in the world is either filled with what God said in the Bible or what man said, but what man said is also found in the Bible as what is incorrect and to be rejected.

V

victorhadin

Guest

I post these quotes;
Science says; "The identical elements in the human body are also found in ordinary soil." And a scientist said, " If it were possible for the human body to lose all of it's electrical values, that body would immediately fly to dust."
Science says, "The "north" above our earth is "empty" and this fact is first found in Job 26:7

Point me towards the equations in the bible governing these relationships, and not loose metaphor, and I will concede your point. A testable model is needed; not allusions.

Coleridge said there is no richer passage in all literature than Matthew 5:1-16
Daniel Webster said the greatest legal digest is the Sermon of the Mount by Jesus Christ.
Charles Dickens said the most pathetic story in the world is the Prodigal Son
Great educated men said;
There is no Law like the Law of Moses.
No poetry like David's
No visions like Isaiah's
No ethics like Jesus'
No zeal like Peter's
No logic like Paul's
No love like what John spoke of and
Paul described in 1 Corinthians 13

Appeal to authority. A lot of educated men have said a lot of conflicting things. One very intelligent one thought up relationships in the division of labour that caused a huge amount of trouble, as you well know. The appeal to authority is invalid as a debateurial tactic.

Sir Isaac Newton had a replica of our solar system made in miniature. In the center was the sun in it's retinue of planets revolving around it.
A scientist entered Newton's study one day and exclaimed, "My! What an exquisite thing this is. Who made it? Newton told him, "Nobody!"
The scientist who was an unbeliever said, "You must think I'm a fool. Of course someone made it and he is a genius!"
Newton laid his hand on his friend's shoulder and said, "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander design whose laws you and I know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess that the great original design from which this design was taken has come into being without designer or maker. Now, tell me, by whgat sort of reasoning do you reach such incongruous conclusions?"

Many scientists are theists, as I have repeatedly stated. This has not prevented the theory of evolution by natural selection (among other things) from being commonly accepted in the scientific community.

A manufacturere of cutlery said it takes two days for a worker to put the parts of a meat chopper together and he knows that if you put all the parts in a tub and shake them for a billion years, you will not get a meat chopper.
There is much to prove the existence of God though what is obvious needs no proof, hence the Bible doesn't prove him, but understands he is real.
End of quotes.

The fact is that the first stepping-stone needed to kick off evolution, the creation by chance of self-replicating organic molecules (among the smallest is a mere 16 amino acids in length), has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Islam is founded on the delusions of a man given to hysteria and visions which almost drove him to suicide. This same man Muhammed married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was nine. His teachings are based on his visit to Syria when he was a boy of 15 and met Jews and Christians. It has been proven by christian scholars and theologians that Muhammed's claims are merely the ramblings of a misguided man.

Voltaire's twelve volumes sold for two dollars at an auction and his home isnow used by a Bible society. Ingersoll said much and died afraid and confused.

Never man spake like Jesus Christ. He spoke from his own essence and no man ever did that except him. All the literature in the world is either filled with what God said in the Bible or what man said, but what man said is also found in the Bible as what is incorrect and to be rejected.

victorhadin

Guest

Anyhow, cheers for the 'human' sentiment. ;)
I am indeed a limey. I am a Yorkshireman, currently living in Manchester but about to move at some point in the near future.

As for your comments, I would agree that science has little to say about morality; why should it? It is merely the scientific method.
Morality, as I see it, is a thing defined in a person by society, the individual and a few hard-coded bits like "do not kill a fellow human being", which everyone has, regardless of upbringing (well, except for the occasional rare nutcase).

I wouldn't assume that believing in evolution makes people harsh, vitriolic, competitive or whatnot. But what the hell; you started a new thread for the subject so I will talk about it there instead of here.

R

Rebecka

Guest

Why haven't you claimed for yourself the $100,000.00 Kent Hovind is offering for anyone, which would mean you too, to prove that evolution is happening right now. He doesn't ask you to duplicate the creation of earth, but simply present some transitional fossils would suffice.

You post gigantic words and preposterous statements, but no proof of evolution.

Right thinking was discovered along with the belief in God, it was founded on the belief in the Ten Commandments. Where do you think morals came from and right thinking? You shall love the Lord your God and you shall do what is right, or else, made it's first appearance in the Bible. Laws and governements are maintained by the teachings found only in the Bible.

You cannot go behind Genesis. Once your mind gets as far back as Genesis 1, it goes blank, there is no way you can prove anything before Genesis 1 which says; "In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER) and the earth (MATTER) was without form (SHAPE) and void (EMPTY) and darkness (BLACKNESS) was upon the face of the deep (WATER)

You want a model and so do I. Show me a transitional fossil.
I will tell you this about how I think of your thinking; Genetic trends is another way of repeating what God said that he would visit the sins of the parents on the children to the third and fourth generation/we also inherit the good, so there it is.

If you will, tell me which came first, the mind or the brain which holds it?

An atheist told me the brain came first, that it evolved and there it was, then the mind developed.
What do you say? I have my own thoughts about it, but first, do you think the brain came first? How did the brain get here? I will go get out that old essay I wrote on it while I await your reply.

What came first, the brain or the mind and how did it get here and I will tell you how you are wrong and how the brain and mind really got here using plain old knowledge and logic.

Dust is dust is dust by any other name as a rose is a rose is a rose.....

victorhadin

Guest

Why haven't you claimed for yourself the $100,000.00 Kent Hovind is offering for anyone, which would mean you too, to prove that evolution is happening right now. He doesn't ask you to duplicate the creation of earth, but simply present some transitional fossils would suffice.

No. You should read the wording of his demands. He demands that you provide incontrovertible evidence for the processes of evolution, steller formation and processes such as the big bang and how they did not happen due to god's influence.

Notice the last bit. It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative, so the list of demands is slanted from the start.

I shall do a deal: I shall offer you ten thousand pounds if you can prove to me that evolution did not happen.

Same logic. Same problem.

You post gigantic words and preposterous statements, but no proof of evolution.

I have given you several key indicators: I have listed several transitional fossils (defined as transitional by the majority of biologists at that), pointed towards the evolution of antibiotic resistence in recent decades with numerous diseases (look up 'superbugs', if you will), the evolved resistence in recent times of many insects to commonly used insecticides, the branched evolution of species in isolated ecosystems, of which I listed two for you to investigate, observed speciation in fruit flies under studied conditions and even a human mutation selected for via evolution in malaria-prone areas (look up sickle-cell anaemia). On top of this I pointed towards the genetic record, which clearly shows that our closest genetic relatives are common chimpanzees, in addition to containing 'junk' or unused DNA and RNA sequences from animals millions of years extinct.

I assume you ignored the lot and didn't bother to investigate any part of what I said? I find myself unsurprised.

By contrast, you have provided zero evidence of creationism at all. Hell; you haven't even tried the usual run of pseudoscience such as 'sun shrinkage' and other such rubbish (to your credit, really), but have stuck to tangled definitions of order being related to divinity and assumptions that mankind has been created.

Right thinking was discovered along with the belief in God, it was founded on the belief in the Ten Commandments. Where do you think morals came from and right thinking? You shall love the Lord your God and you shall do what is right, or else, made it's first appearance in the Bible. Laws and governements are maintained by the teachings found only in the Bible.

How do you account for pre-Christian or pre-Judeaic (sp?) civilisations and their success? How do you account for the moral conduct of Buddhists and Hindus in today's world?
-Your logic is flawed again.

Most social studies have identified that morality is a learned thing; chiefly picked up by family and your surrounding society. Social nroms often differ in many parts of teh world and I have yet to hear evidence that a single cosmic 'right' and single cosmic 'wrong' exist.

-Especially when you consider the more dubious biblical accounts in the old testament of slave ownership and teatment of sinners; or do you cautiously ignore the old testament?

You cannot go behind Genesis. Once your mind gets as far back as Genesis 1, it goes blank, there is no way you can prove anything before Genesis 1 which says; "In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER) and the earth (MATTER) was without form (SHAPE) and void (EMPTY) and darkness (BLACKNESS) was upon the face of the deep (WATER)

I listed several earlier. Look them up rather than feigning ignorance.

You obviously think that a transitional fossil should be some sort of bizarre chimera. They aren't. A transitional fossil is merely a fossil of a species that served as an evolutionary go-between between other species. We, right now will no doubt be considered part of a 'transitional' species in a million years if humanity continues to evolve (and there is no reason why it shouldn't).

You wish for further evidence? Look at a whale skeleton or the skeleton of a porpoise or dolphin. Observe the fingers. They are an evolutionary remnant of the long-gone land-dwelling mammalian species that modern ceteceans evolved from.

I will tell you this about how I think of your thinking; Genetic trends is another way of repeating what God said that he would visit the sins of the parents on the children to the third and fourth generation/we also inherit the good, so there it is.

Have you any evidence? Evidence exists to support the evolutionary model of DNA transference, but I have seen no article published in any scientific journal stating evidence that it is god's work.

If you will, tell me which came first, the mind or the brain which holds it?

An atheist told me the brain came first, that it evolved and there it was, then the mind developed.
What do you say? I have my own thoughts about it, but first, do you think the brain came first? How did the brain get here? I will go get out that old essay I wrote on it while I await your reply.

Depends how you define 'mind' really. If you mean a 'conscious' or 'sentient' mind, I would say that the brain evolved first, as it was initially a collection of nerve relays coverning simple behavioural patterns in animals.
Insects and snails have brains, but would you describe them as having a 'mind'?

What came first, the brain or the mind and how did it get here and I will tell you how you are wrong and how the brain and mind really got here using plain old knowledge and logic.

I just explained. The brain was a collection of nerves, initially coverning simple reactions and reflexes. As brains (in some cases but not all; I haven't seen any giant-brained mosquitoes lately) evolved to larger sizes, they became capable of learned responses, and of changing structure throughout the life of the animal (the seat of learned response, effectively).

Several creatures have been known to have had multiple brains, indeed.

Dust is dust is dust by any other name as a rose is a rose is a rose.....

Rebecka

Guest

years as a medical practitioner, I suddenly found myself an avid consumer, rather than a provider, of medical care. Involved in a serious road accident in 1986, I spent many months in hospital, including weeks in an intensive care unit.

While in intensive care, I became infected with one of the varieties of so-called supergerms, which are the scourge of modern hospitals. These are strains of bacteria which are resistant to almost every (and in some cases every) type of antibiotic known to man.

Several others in the same unit with me died as a result of infection by the same bacterial strain. The germs overwhelmed their immune systems and invaded their bloodstream, untouched by the most expensive and sophisticated antibiotics available.

This supergerm problem1 is an increasingly serious concern in Western countries. It strikes precisely those hospitals which are more 'high-tech', and handle more serious illnesses. Applying more disinfectant is not the answer; some strains of germs have actually been found thriving in bottles of hospital disinfectant! The more antibacterial chemical 'weapons' are being used, the more bacteria are becoming resistant to them.

The reality of increasing bacterial resistance seems at first to be an obvious example of onwards and upwards evolution. But the facts, when carefully examined, show otherwise.

NATURAL SELECTION, BUT NOT EVOLUTION
Evolution is basically the belief that everything has made itselfÃ¢â‚¬â€that natural processes (over millions of years, without miraculous, divine input of intelligence) have created an increasingly complex array of creatures. According to evolution, there was once a time when none of the creatures in the world had lungs. This means that there was no genetic information (the 'blueprint' for living things, carried on the molecule DNA) for lungsÃ¢â‚¬â€anywhere. Then, at a later time, 'lung information' arose and was added to the world, but no 'feather information' as yetÃ¢â‚¬â€feathers evolved later.

Keep up to date with the latest creation information!
Creation Magazine

Keep your family informed on the latest easy-to-understand evidences for creation and against evolution! This unique full-color family magazine gives God the glory, refutes evolution, and gives you the answers to defend your faith. Exciting articles and great witnessing material you won't find anywhere else! Includes a beautifully illustrated full-color childrenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s section in every issue. Powerful ammunition to intelligently discuss nature, history, science, the Bible, and related subjects. Delivered to your home every three months!

MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE

In other words, for every feature which arises by evolution, there would need to be new genetic information added to the total information in the biosphere (i.e., all the information in all creatures on earth). Some features could be lost subsequently, of course, so there will not always be a gain, but if microbes turned into magpies, maple trees and musicians, there must have been a massive net increase in information. This is not just any jumble of chemical sequences, but meaningful information, since it codes for complex structures which have purposeful functions.

So if new information, new functional complexity, can be shown to be arising by itself where previously there was none, this would give some credibility to the idea of molecules-to-man evolution, although it would not strictly prove that it had occurred.

However, it can be shown that in every situation where populations of living things change, they do so without increase (and often with a decrease) of information. Thus, it is completely illegitimate for anyone to claim that such changes show 'evolution happening'.

Let's look at what is known about how the superbugs became resistant, and askÃ¢â‚¬â€did any new structures or functions arise in the process (which is another way of asking whether there was any evidence of evolution)?

There are a number of different ways in which germs can become resistant to these poisons. A 'superbug' is, by definition, resistant to many different antibiotics. It may have become resistant to antibiotic A in one way, to antibiotic B in a completely different way, and to antibiotic C in another way again. So if we look at all the known ways of resistance arising in a population of germs, we will see if any of them are uphill, information-adding processes.

1. Some germs already had the resistance.

If out of a million bacteria, five already have a feature that makes them resistant (however that arose) to, say, penicillin, then soaking them in penicillin will kill all of them except for the five. Now the body's natural defences will often 'mop up' such a small population before it can multiply and cause harm, so resistance will not become a problem. However, if that doesn't happen, then those five germs can multiply, and their offspring will obviously also be resistant. So within a short time, there will be millions of germs resistant to penicillin. Notice that:

This is why multiple resistance to major antibiotics is more common in hospitals which treat more serious conditionsÃ¢â‚¬â€ these are the hospitals which will frequently be using the sophisticated, expensive 'heavy artillery' antibiotics, so this sort of 'natural selection' will happen more often.

In this kind of instance, the information to resist the antibiotic was already there in the bacterial populationÃ¢â‚¬â€it did not arise by itself, or in response to the antibiotic.

That some germs were already resistant to man-made antibiotics before these were invented is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples from villages where modern antibiotics had never been used show that some of the germs are already resistant to drugs like methicillin which have never existed in nature. Bacteria revived from the frozen intestines of explorers who died in polar expeditions carried resistance to several modern antibiotics, which had not been invented when the explorers died.2

2. Some germs directly transfer their resistance to others.

In an amazing process, the closest thing to sex in bacteria, one germ inserts a tiny tube into another, and a little loop of DNA called a 'plasmid' transfers from one to another. This sort of gene transfer, which can obviously pass on information for resistance to a drug, can even happen between different species of bacteria.

Notice, again, that the information for the resistance must already exist in nature before it can be passed on. There is no evidence of anything totally new arising that was not there before. This is information transfer, not information creation.

So far, we have dealt with situations in which resistance was obviously already there. Evolutionists would claim, of course, that such resistance evolved originally in the (unobservable) past. However, if observed changes in the present do not show us new information, what support is there for the idea that such information arose in the past? The mechanism that is put forward for this past evolution is invariably mutationÃ¢â‚¬â€a copying mistake, an accidental change in the DNA code passed on to the offspring. So that brings us to the final way in which bacteria can become resistant.

3. Some germs become resistant through mutation.

Interestingly, where this happens, there is no clear-cut evidence of information arising. All such mutations appear to be losses of information, degenerative changes. For example, loss of a control gene may enhance resistance to penicillin.3

Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ's interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner.

However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.4 Once again, we see that information has been lost/corrupted, not gained.

SUPERWIMPS
It is precisely because the mutations which give rise to resistance are in some form or another defects, that so-called supergerms are not really super at allÃ¢â‚¬â€they are actually rather 'wimpy' compared to their close cousins. When I was finally discharged from hospital, I still had a strain of supergerm colonizing my body. Nothing had been able to get rid of it, after months in hospital. However, I was told that all I had to do on going home was to 'get outdoors a lot, occasionally even roll in the dirt, and wait.' In less than two weeks of this advice, the supergerms were gone. Why? The reason is that supergerms are actually defective in other ways, as explained. Therefore, when they are forced to compete with the ordinary bacteria which normally thrive on our skin, they do not have a chance. They thrive in hospital because all the antibiotics and antiseptics being used there keep wiping out the ordinary bacteria which would normally out-compete, wipe out and otherwise keep in check these 'superwimps'.5

If they are 'weaker', then why do they cause so much death and misery in hospitals? These bacteria are not more aggressive than their colleagues, it is only that doctors have less power to stop them. Also, those environments which will tend to 'select' such resistant germs, like intensive care units, are precisely the places where there will be critically injured people, physically weakened and often with open wounds.

This is why more than one microbiologist concerned about these super-infections has mused (only partly tongue in cheek) that the best thing to happen in major hospitals might be to dump truckloads of germ-laden dirt into the corridors, rather than keep on applying more and more chemicals in a never-ending 'arms race' against the bacteria. In other words, stop using the antibiotics (which of course is hardly feasible), and all this 'evolution' will reverse itself, as the bacterial populations shift back again to favour the more hardy, less resistant varieties.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Supergerms are actually not super at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special conditions in hospitals.

There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that 'imported' from other bacteria).

Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, 'uphill' change.

Supergerms give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information progressively over millions of years.

POSTSCRIPT
Death, suffering and disease (including infection) are part of the curse which came upon a once-perfect world through the rebellion of our original ancestor, Adam, against his Maker.

Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilised in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.

When next you read about supergerms, remember that everything known about them is consistent with the Genesis creation of an originally good, complex world ruined by sin.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

Common types of bacteria to become resistant to many different types of antibiotics at once (called multiple drug resistance) are Klebsiella, Pneumococcus, and Staphylococcus. The term 'golden staph' has become a lay expression for these superbugs, but it is actually a correct lay term for the most common type of staph, otherwise known as S. aureus or S. pyogenes, which applies even if the bug is not multiply resistant. Return to text.

The enzyme penicillinase, produced by some bacteria, destroys penicillin. If a member of a bacterial strain producing a modest amount of this substance were to inherit a mutational defect which damaged or deleted the gene controlling production of this enzyme, the organism would invest a lot of resources into producing copious amounts of penicillinase. Thus, this defect would be an advantage in an environment containing penicillin, but would be a disadvantage otherwise. Once again, a loss is involved. There is no evidence that the complex information coding for penicillinase production arose by mutation. Return to text.

For a somewhat more detailed and technical treatment of the whole matter of antibiotic resistance, with further references, see also C. Wieland, 'Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria', CEN Technical Journal 8(1):5Ã¢â‚¬â€œ6, 1994. Return to text.

This of course is a real dilemma facing the medical profession, especially when faced with patient demand for antibiotics for illnesses which would probably get better without them. The more that antibiotics are used, the less effective they become for some of these life-threatening conditions. Return to text.

victorhadin

Guest

I never said that the development of 'superbugs' was a demonstration of speciation; I have given them elsewhere. What they are is a useful indicator of natural selection.
Even the 'superwimps' comment is not 100% accurate. The selected metabolic changes that provide resistence to certain chemicals will most likely not be beneficial in an environment in which such changes are not necessary. This, however, is hardly an issue; the resistence alone makes it worth it from the point of view of natural selection, and so large populations of 'superbugs' evolve.

In much the same way, the condition causing sickle-cell anaemia is not beneficial in Western Europe, but it is highly beneficial in sub-Saharan Africa where Malaria is rife. As such, it is not 'wimpy' at all in the environment it was 'selected' in.

Once again, you fail to understand the nature of natural selection. It is not some mysterious force which makes species 'better', climbing them up a ladder of excellence. It is merely a process which fits them more accurately to their particular environmental niche. The 'superbugs' are better-adapted to modern Western nations with good healthcare systems; their 'natural' brethren are better adapted to regions in which modern antibiotics are not available.

So what of the rest of the points I made for you? Hmmm?

And have you yet formulated that logical model for creationism?

R

Rebecka

Guest

You say the brain came first, then the mind. A human brain is what I refer to.

Since time began it is a fact that men hunted for whatever would meet their need. They searched for water to satisfy their thirst.
The hunted food to satisfy their hunger. You even search for answers, apparently answers exist or why would we search. Jesus said to seek and you will find.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
We don't make something unless we need it. Man is a hunter by his very nature as history and observation have taught us.

There has to be a purpose, a NEED.

For what purpose would a brain evolve? There would not be a purpose for a brain except to house a mind.

The thought that a brain was needed to house the mind where thoughts are produced would be the product of the mind's, not the physical organ called a brain.

The mind would have to have thought of it FIRST, then the brain would have been needed as a place or case to contain the brain.

You saying the brain came first without a mind is saying the brain thought WITHOUT the mind.

Not even.

Kent Hovind has the $100,000.00, but he knows there is no possibility that anyone can ever prove evolution is happening or ever happened simply because kent Hovind knows it isn't happening in any way shape or form.

His challenges are not illogical as you claim.
You say it is impossible to prove a negative, but you're wrong.
Even a double negative produces a postive, ie: "you don't like oranges in vain." is a double negative prepostional phrase meaning a positive that you like oranges and oranges are beneficial to you.

"Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee" is a negative producing a positive because "nobody" cannot exist unless it obviously referred to a person, though seemingly non existent and it does refer to a person. This "nobody" is really a somebody who likes Sarah Lee.

There had to be the idea before anything can come into existence, Victorhadin, as all of history and pure common sense tells us we don't make something unless we need it.

Man hunted for what he needed as he needed it and even stored some up, but never was something made if there was not a need for it in some way to begin with.

You hunt for food, at the store, in your refigerator, etc. wherever food can be found. You even surf the channels hunting for something interesting to watch on television, always searching for whatever you NEED.
You hunt for warmth if you're cold, for coolness if you're hot, for quietness if it is too noisy, for companionship if you're lonely, for love, for help, for many things as you need them, so there could be no physical anything unless the thought for it was first there. You need glass to cover your windows, blankets for your bed, glasses tod rink from, it is a ll a need to be met and youhunt for whatever you need as you need it.

All these thoughts to make things started in a MIND, God's, the great Mind.

It isn't even possible for anything to be made unless the thought for it's need was there first.

You mentioned how are ancient religions accounted for when Christianity claims and is the only way to God.

History tells us the ancient Hebrews were the ones with the BOOK.
Recorded history points to the Hebrews as the ones who gave us everything we have in right thinking.

Hinduism, Guatama's and all ancient gurus claims are all found in the Bible, it is all there, nothing was left out.

I mentioned the ancient myths and how they came about,(I'm not surprised you didn't read about them in my posts) but the Tanach is the first and only book and the ancient Hebrews had it. Study what they found at Ugarit.
Only two lines of thought permeate all literature. They are God's thoughts and man's human thoughts, but man's thoughts are warned of in God's thoughts which are recorded in the Bible.

The Nuzu law , the first recorded law in history was a product of man's attempt at organizing his own inner leadings, but when Moses came along, not too long after, God made it all clear to him what he wanted and who he is and every thought in the universe is found in the Bible and all other thoughts of any guru from the beginning of recorded history to now were first found IN the Bible..

Rebecka

Guest

Remember Matthew the young homosexual who was beaten to death in Laramie, Wyoming by certain individuals who deemed him less than excellent?

Their minds which were products of their environmental teachings saw Matthew as a wimp, a misfit, a blemish in their "excellent" world? Natural evil in them eliminated him from our society because in their opinion, he was less than "excellent" or "perfect" like the men who killed him.

You cannot deny that this evil teaching was a product of Darwin's teachings that not all things were necessary, not all things are excellent, so in natural selection, what is not excellent is easily removed simply by natural selection. Beauty will select beauty and strength will select strength and so on and anything not in line with what is excellent and beautiful will be eliminated by natural selection. As some think that AIDS is nature's way of eliminating the Negro race. Or Hitler's thought that all Jews must die as they are inferior.

I see clearly what you think is natural selection.
A scientist who is an evolutionist observed birds who died in a storm and after examining them said the birds with the smaller wings and beaks perished and the stronger ones survived because of the birds anatomy, never thinking the force of the storm had anything to do with it. He failed to observe the obvious.

Birds remain birds even though they have different beaks or wings. Never does one thing change into another. It is the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy. (not sure which law, but one of them)

Water can turn to ice, then back to water, but never into something else unless, ie: you add sugar, coloring and taste and it is now called Kool Aid, but the water is there, so is the ice, but all in different forms, but never does one thing change to another.

Excellence means excellence and since man's mind has so many opinions, no telling what excellence is to one in comparsion to another man's , but the fact remains that the word "excellence" has a per se meaning and cannot be changed though opinions vary. There are absolutes and apply to all life and principles.

Natural selection is not happening, but revealings are. God reveals, not evolves. God allowed sin and came to redeem us from our "natural selections."

For experiment they placed a man alone in a pitch dark room for seven days. He had nothing but pitch darkness and coolness and he began to experience lonliness and fear, confusion and panic.

After 3 days, they placed one small candle in there and it cheered him, it comforted him and provided warmth. He needed these things to survive.

Man could never adapt to darkness. Someone told me man could adapt after millions of years, but he failed to take into account that the first generation would die if left alone in pitch darkness. In other words, there would be no one alive to go into the next generation for anyone to adapt.

If eyes evolved as needed, how could they have evolved in the dark, why would they be needed except to see? Man cannot see in the dark. And if they evolved in the light, how is it they cannot look into the sun? If they evolved in twilight, then why do they need to look on light more than darkness?

Many questions and all have answers found in the Bible, not in Darwin's theory which has never been proven, but have been disproven.

If you claim man can adapt, you're blocked right here with darkness because it is virtually impossible for man to adapt or evolve in darkness.

Jesus said he is the Light of the world and the light in Him is the Life of man.